DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


ex-FR, USNR
Docket No. ND06-00087

Applicant’s Request

The application for discharge review was received on 20051020. The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. In the acknowledgement letter, the Applicant was informed that he was approaching the 15-year point for review by this Board and was encouraged to attend a personal appearance hearing at the Washington Navy Yard, Washington D.C. The Applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 20061025 . After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain Under Other Than Honorable Conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct .


.

---

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues, as stated

Applicant’s issues, as stated on the attached letter:

“Psychiatric Evaluation

B_ G_ (Applicant) been seen at this clinic since August 13, 2004. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, Polysubstance Abuse, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Apparently he had started having behavioral problems while he was in active duty while in the Navy. He was dishonorably discharged because of his behaviors. In my opinion, it is possible that patient started having prodromal symptoms of Schizophrenia displayed by antisocial behaviors or substance abuse at that time. He is currently receiving antipsychotic medication: Risperdal, 4mg, one a day at night, with partial resolution of his psychotic symptoms.

I recommend that his case be reexamined so that he will be eligible for Veteran’s Benefits.

Sincerely,

D_ H. R_, M.D.
Staff Psychiatrist
I am requesting that you reevaluate Mr. G_ (Applicant) Under Other Than Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Navy on April 8, 2002 for Misconduct.

I have had the privilege to work with Mr. G_ (Applicant) in the capacity of social worker for over a year now. I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with over ten years of experience in the mental health field.

During the time that I have worked with Mr. G_ (Applicant) I have been able to obtain a good case history from childhood on. These records indicate a history of severe and persistent mental illness on both maternal and fraternal sides of his family, specific to schizophrenia and Bi-polar disorders. Records also indicate treatment for psychiatric symptoms in his adolescent years that could be interpreted as prodromal symptoms of both a thought and mood disorder. He reported hearing voices in high school and school staff records indicate that Mr. G_ (Applicant) was often preoccupied and acted in both an odd and bizarre manner in both his junior and senior years.

Bernard was hospitalized within months of discharge from the Navy for treatment of both psychotic and mood dysregulation symtomology. He was given a provisional working diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and has been on antipsychotic medication from this period on. His current Axis I diagnosis is Schizophrenia, paranoid type (295.30).

After having reviewing my client’s service and medical records specific to charges for which he was found guilty of under the UCMJ, I believe that there is the distinct possibility that Mr. G_ (Applicant) mental illness went undetected and that the pattern of misconduct as evidenced by UCMJ violations and severe alcohol abuse may have indicated a level of mental chaos brought on by his mental illness and need to self medicate to treat his symptoms. In the psychiatric interview Axis I diagnosis was “Deferred” with no explanation given. This may have indicated that the clinician saw a level of symptomology that did not fit a clear clinical picture.
A review of his records is requested for possible reconsideration and upgrade of his discharge. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very Respectfully,

T_ M. P_ MSW, LCSW”

Documentation

Only the service and medical records were reviewed. The Applicant did not provide additional documentation for the Board’s consideration.

---

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):

         Inactive: None
         Active: None

Period of Service Under Review :

Date of Enlistment: 1990512              Date of Discharge: 19920408

Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 08 02
         Inactive: 00 02 26

Time Lost During This Period (days):

         Unauthorized absence: None
         Confinement:              None

Age at Entry: 20

Years Contracted: 8 (36 months active)

Education Level: 12                                 AFQT: 32

Highest Rate: FA

Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

Performance: 3.6 (1)              Behavior: 2.8 (1)                          OTA: 3.2

Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, (as listed on the DD Form 214): National Defense Service Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal With Bronze Star, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon

---

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/ Misconduct - Pattern of misconduct, authority: MILPERSMAN, Article 3630600.

Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900512:  Pre-service waiver for two non-minor misdemeanor “criminal trespassing to residence and battery”granted.

900807:  Commenced active duty for a period of 36 months.

910131:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92 (6 specs):
         Specification 1: Failure to obey a lawful order from a petty officer on 26 Dec 1990.
         Specification 2: Failure to obey a lawful order from a petty officer on 26 Dec 1990.
         Specification 3: Failure to obey a lawful order from a petty officer on 16 Jan 1991.
         Specification 4: Failure to obey a lawful regulation on 26 Dec 1990.
         Specification 5: Failure to obey a lawful regulation on 25 Dec 1990
         Specification 6: Failure to obey a lawful regulation on 16 Jan 1990
         Award: 30 days correctional custody. No indication of appeal in the record.

910410:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 86: Unauthorized absence from 0730, 29MAR91 to 0945, 29MAR91.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 130: Unlawful entry to an officer quarters, Newport, RI on 29MAR91.
         Award: Forfeiture of $362.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended for 3 months), three days of bread and water. No indication of appeal in the record.

910829:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty (sleeping on watch).
         Award: Forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months. No indication of appeal in the record.

911127:  Retention Warning: Advised of deficiency (Repeated disorderly conduct, failure to obey lawful orders and regulations.), notified of corrective actions and assistance available, advised of consequences of further deficiencies, and issued discharge warning.

911206:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 91: Insubordinate conduct towards a petty officer.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Failure to obey other lawful order.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 128: Assault.
Violation of UCMJ, Article 134: Threat communicating.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duties for 30 days, reduction to E-1. No indication of appeal in the record.

911211:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by Commanding Officer’s NJP throughout your current enlistment and by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense, evidenced by your two counts of Assault on 30 November, 1991.

911211:  Applicant advised of rights and having consulted with counsel, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

920122:  NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 92: Dereliction of duty.
         Award: Forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 30 days. No indication of appeal in the record.

920227:  Discharge physical. Applicant found to be fit for separation.

920311:  Commanding Officer, USS KAUFFMAN, recommended to COMNAVMILPERSCOM that the Applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct evidenced by Commanding Officer’s NJP throughout your current enlistment and by reason of misconduct due to commission of a serious offense evidenced by your two counts of assault on 30 November 1991. Commanding Officer’s comments: “FR G_ (Applicant) has demonstrated he is not suited for naval service, his total lack of maturity, when combined with his unwillingness to abstain from alcohol, make for an explosive combination, often violent. He has become increasingly belligerent to the authority figures in his division and can no longer be trusted to competently perform his assigned duties. He represents a significant liberty risk in any foreign port. He is a danger to the crew because of his uncontrollable violence. FR G_ (Applicant) has ignored repeated counseling and the efforts of this command to encourage him towards navy life.”

920403:  BUPERS, directed the Applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct.

---

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The Applicant was discharged on 19920408 by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A and B) with a service characterization of under other than honorable conditions. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

The Applicant requested upgrade of his characterization of discharge. When the service of a member of the U.S. Navy has been honest and faithful, it is appropriate to characterize that service as honorable. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is warranted when significant negative aspects of a member’s conduct or performance of duty outweigh the positive aspects of the member’s military record. The Applicant’s service was marred by a retention warning and three nonjudicial punishment proceedings for violations of Articles 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), 91 (insubordinate conduct), 128 (assault), 130 (housebreaking), and 134 (communicating a threat). Violations of Articles 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), 91 (insubordinate conduct), 128 (assault), 130 (housebreaking), and 134 (communicating a threat) are considered serious offenses for which a punitive discharge is authorized at courts martial. The Applicant’s conduct, which forms the primary basis for determining the character of his service, reflects his failure to meet the requirements of his contract with the U.S. Navy and falls far short of that required for an upgrade of characterization of service. Relief is not warranted.

An upgrade has been requested because of the Applicant’s post service mental health diagnosis. When reviewing a discharge, the NDRB does consider the extent to which a medical problem might affect an Applicant’s performance and ability to conform to the military’s standards of conduct and discipline. A review of the Applicant’s discharge medical examination records and the limited information provided to the board on behalf of the Applicant did not provide a sufficient connection between the Applicant’s misconduct and his medical condition to draw a conclusion that he was not responsible for his misconduct while in the service. The NDRB does not consider the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s stated condition, the implied failure to properly diagnose, nor the medical treatment given to the Applicant since his discharge to be of sufficient nature to exculpate the Applicant’s misconduct. Relief denied.

A stated reason for requesting an upgrade of the Applicant’s discharge was to enable him to obtain benefits. The following is for the edification of the Applicant. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination on the propriety and equity of the discharge.

The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided an application is received, at the NDRB, within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C, effective 15 Aug 91 until
04 Mar 93), Article 3630600, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED PERSONNEL BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT - A PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT.

B. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violations of UCMJ Articles 92 (failure to obey a lawful order), 91 (insubordinate conduct), 128 (assault), 130 (housebreaking), and 134 (communicating a threat).

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 502, Propriety .

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part V, Para 503, Equity .

---

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT


If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil ” .

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023